|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review
|
arlinda's review
dylan walsh played this to the hilt and to think sean mcnamara from nip/tuck could be this evil.
Published 2 months ago by Arlinda Johnson
|
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews |
 |
12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Pointless remake, badly executed
I hate to start a review with an admission of guilt, but I have to admit that I agreed to see a bargain showing of THE STEPFATHER to placate my bored daughter without any expectations that the film would be decent. So I didn't exactly have an open mind. Sadly, the film did NOTHING to change the mind I had almost made up in advance.
The 1987 original was, in...
Published 8 months ago by RMurray847
|
› See more 3 star, 2 star, 1 star reviews |
|
|
12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Pointless remake, badly executed, December 31, 2009
I hate to start a review with an admission of guilt, but I have to admit that I agreed to see a bargain showing of THE STEPFATHER to placate my bored daughter without any expectations that the film would be decent. So I didn't exactly have an open mind. Sadly, the film did NOTHING to change the mind I had almost made up in advance.
The 1987 original was, in its day, a creepy success. Terry O'Quinn (John Locke on LOST) was a calm, cool & collected psycho killer whose friendly demeanor could shut off in split second and become icy deadness. The basic story is similar in the two movies. The stepfather ingratiates himself into a family where the mother is feeling alone and in need of male companionship, and thus, may overlook a few strange moments in her new beau. There are kids already in place, and their new stepfather works hard to win them over...but they pick up on the fact that a lot of it is fake emotion. When the kids inevitably "disappoint" their new dad, bloody hell takes over and the family is killed, and "dad" moves on to another family.
In the original, the stepfather actually was always juggling two families. He already knew that one would inevitably disappoint him and he'd need another household to move to. When you think about it, this IS pretty creepy...he knows it's just a matter of time before he has to kill everyone, so why not have another family readily at hand. In the remake, the stepfather (Dylan Walsh, from NIP/TUCK) just goes from one to another...as though he thinks each family will be THE ONE.
The story is pretty predictable and familiar (and I bet if I looked back at 1987's film again, it would seem pretty tame...although I doubt the power of O'Quinn's performance will have diminished). New guy moves in and little details about him just don't seem right. Kids grow suspicious, but the newly married mother is oblivious or in denial. As the puzzle comes together, dad becomes more unhinged and all this leads to a final, bloody confrontation. A story as neatly laid out as this requires credible acting and a good pace and good editing sense to have a chance of giving us the creeps we need to feel. The new STEPFATHER doesn't measure up at all.
Walsh is an acceptable choice as the lead character. In NIP/TUCK, Walsh's character Sean is always the guy who on the surface seems like the nice, understanding, decent counterpart to his hedonistic partner, but often behaves just as stupidly. You could argue that he hasn't strayed all that far afield in THE STEPFATHER, but the role of the nice guy with a dark heart fits him. He doesn't do anything spectacular with the role, but he is acceptable. Sela Ward, always a solid if unspectacular actress, plays his new wife...and she's solid but unspectacular. Her dialogue, when she's defending her new man, is hardly of help to her. It's of the "Why can't everyone just be happy for me?" ilk.
So, two crucial characters are in place, and they are okay, particularly for an unambitious, low-budget genre film. But then we've got Penn Badgley and Amber Heard (PINEAPPLE EXPRESS) as the "kids." Each actor is about 23, but supposedly of high school age. Neither looks remotely that young. Badgley is the troubled son who has just come back for the summer from military school. He's sullen and vaguely unhappy, but never convinces as a kid that was bad enough to be sent away. He's mostly petulant, and, frankly, a bad actor. Heard is his long-time girlfriend, and it is apparently her lifelong ambition to strut around in front of her marginally interested boyfriend in a skimpy bikini. I felt somewhat bad for her...she's supposed to be the "rock" that keeps her boyfriend steady and grounded, and she's constantly giving him advice...but it's always in her bikini. Heard is not up to the task, so she comes across as an airhead who is reading lines. And the bikini seems even more out of place, because even though the two are ALWAYS hanging around the backyard pool, the film is lit in such a way that it always feel vaguely overcast and cold outside...I was always thinking she would be covered in goosebumps. It's these two characters who are supposed to finally put two-and-two together about the new man in their lives...but they seem so bland and vacuous that I never believed a single thing either of them said or did on screen. And if you dislike these characters, it's really tough to give a darn about what happens to them.
Also, the movie is PG-13, and this doesn't help. Walsh commits several violent acts, but we always cut away tastefully before we see much of anything, and while I don't need to wallow in gratuitous violence, not seeing ANYTHING really happen never really allows us to fear this guy. For goodness sake, he kills a little old lady from across the street, and we don't feel a thing.
There are occasional amusing elements, such as watching Walsh come up with excuses not to provide a social security number to his new employer...but when the climactic confrontations come, they are bland and unexciting. The movie spends a lot of time leading up to the final you-know-what hitting the fan, but when it does, all we can do is shrug "so what."
There was no really good reason to remake THE STEPFATHER. But having decided to, the filmmakers put very little effort into it. It's as though they decided that marketing should do all the work for them...they didn't actually need to make a good film. And they at least succeeded in that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
THE STEPFATHER! THE LIFETIME CHANNEL VERSION!, May 31, 2010
Having always been a fan of the original film, I was curious to see this remake, even though I expected the worst. While this is an OK watch for thriller fans, it is inferior to the original in every way. In fact the original is more intense, more graphic and just more fun! This film looked and felt like a Lifetime TV movie especially with Ward playing the new wife in this tame and pointless remake.
If you looking to watch a film about a psychotic Stepfather, skip the watered down remake and look for the original, which has finally gotten a long over due DVD release this past year, no doubt because of the remake, so I guess the remake did serve a purpose after all.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Low Budget Affair, April 27, 2010
A formulaic film, that looks like it was produced on a shoe string, and where we know exactly the road it will follow. Therefore, there is little or no suspense beyond the general startle by slasher set-up. The use of a hand held jumpy camera for the slasher parts is vertigo-inducing, and several of the other scenes are dimly lit (i.e. in a dark basement where it's difficult to see.) Did not enjoy this one at all, although the "bloopers" in the special features segment were pretty funny.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Who am I here?, March 23, 2010
"The Stepfather" is a mediocre film at best. We watch movies like "The Stepfather" for the suspense, the action, the atractive females, and the drama. This movie has this as well as Dylan Walsh from "Nip/Tuck." I must be watching too much "Criminal Minds," as I was working on a profile of Walsh's David Harris character the whole movie. The movie stars Sela Ward, a divorced mother with two pre-teen children and a boy nearing adulthood. TV star Penn Badgley, coupled with Amber Heard's bikini clad body round out the main cast.
David Harris's unknown childhood drives him to want the perfect family, if this doesn't work out he kills the family, as seen in the opening of this film. Moving on to a new city, changing his looks, his name, and always paying in cash, David Harris finds himself a new victim. Staking out a grocery store, looking for the perfect surrogate family, Harris comes across Susan Harding, played by the still extremely attractive Sela Ward, and her two pre-teen children. Seeing hismself as the perfect father for this family, Harris introduces himself, turns on the charm and starts anew. Sometime later, Susan's oldest son Michael, played by Penn Badgley, returns from military school for the summer and the plot thickens, as they say. Unsure of his position in his family, Michael takes his time adjusting, lounging by the pool with girlfriend Kelly, played by Amber Heard. David's pyschosis starts to surface when Michael's younger brother Sean, played by Braeden Lemasters, ignores his mother and plays his video games too loudly. David grabs Sean by the neck and squeezes hard, scaring the kid into submission. After taking a job showing houses for Susan's sister Jackie, and doing well, Jackie asks for some personal identification for tax forms and David quits. David deals with these intrusions into his delusions the only way he seems to know how, violence. As you can guess Michael catches on to David pretty quickly and trouble soon ensues. From here on out, the rest is predictable.
I think Dylan Walsh's character although incomplete was the most developed. Walsh's creepy acting helped to counter-act the weak character development that the story's writers left him. When strangling the family's estranged father in the basement, I could see in Dylan's eyes, not anger but desparation, not evil, but fear. His glances, his hand gestures, his facial gestures all appear original and convincing. Sela Ward, on the other hand, plays her character way too trusting, a bit too naive, and less convincing as Walsh. Penn Badgley does a better job in staying on the fence about the stepfather. Michael seems to envision a happier, idealized family at first, willing to let go of the past and start anew. Perhaps the writers handed Badgley more character than they did the rest of the cast. In contrast, Amber Heard, plays a blonde in a bikini, no depth, no woman's intuition until its too late. Eye candy is all she is.
A good thing about this film is the pacing. The prologue is a series of quick cuts allowing the audience to form impressions rather than to take in fully the carnage. Slower shots as the location and main characters are lightly developed. I think director Nelson McCormick, realizing he was in trouble, reacts, by picking up the pace and shortens the scenes, compensting for a lack of story development. McCormick pauses, perhaps a bit too long on the pool scenes, to let the camera caress Amber Heard's supple body. Quick edits help keep the film's pace on track and the suspence building till the end of the movie, which comes blissfully faster. The other key ingredient for keeping this film moving and the suspense building the the music. Perhaps overdone on parts, however, this movie needed the overemphasis badly to keep the tension from fading.
I never quite came up with a great profile for this character, other than what appeared to be his basic need for a family. I could conjecture, that Edward was abused when he was a child, abandoned or neglected. The writers don't give any direct references to the Walsh's character's past. This is why I think this film falls into the mere slasher movie category and nothing more. Watch this movie only if you are looking for a cheap thrill, keep your expectations low and get close to your signicant other.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Fairly enjoyable, March 18, 2010
There's not really much I can say that the other reviewers (positive or negative) haven't already said. Enjoyment of this movie is subjective, I guess. I didn't think it was GREAT, but it wasn't horrible either. I've seen lots scarier, and I rented this from a Redbox, so for a dollar, I can't say this movie was a waste of my money.
One thing I liked was how the stepdad was slipping up so quickly near the end of the movie, with blurting out the wrong name to his new wife, going after the girlfriend, and the like. He was just rather sloppy, so it was humorous to see his facade unravel on that one rainy night. If you're going to rent this film, just don't hold too high of a standard and you won't be disappointed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Why?, March 15, 2010
Why?
This is the question that seems engraved on my brain since I always ask this question when I've seen yet ANOTHER totally unecessary remake of a movie masterpiece that should never ever be touched because it was perfect the first time around.
In the l987 gem, Terry O'Quinn became an overnight sensation for his brilliant delineation of a terriying pychopath who could easily slaughter brutally with the expression of a monster and within a half-second be looking like a handsome, pleasant head of the house. He would cooly whistle and smear peanut butter on toast, pick up his coat and walk by a room full of family corpses.
Switch to this 2009 "re-imagining", as the director describes it in the "Making of..." documentary. Dylan Walsh does the honors this time but there's nothing remotely chilling about him. Instead of a daughter this time, he has a step-son, Penn Badgley, who is so vacant, surly and cold you can understand the step-father's urge to murder him.
So much of the movie is spent with the son and his irritating girlfriend, Amber Head, who live in their bathing suits by the pool. Her total refusal to believe her boyfriend's suspicions about his step-father is so relentless you wish that she could have been an early victim.
Unlike the original, there's zero suspense here. The cast is a talented one but none can do much with this lousy script and direction.
It would be so wonderful if our modern movie-makers would spent the $60 million it took to make this brainless mess on a brand new horror script. I'm so heartily sick of reading each day that yet another horror classic is being "re-imagined". Oh, for the days of genuine, oiginal horror--like 'Psycho, The Evil Dead, Alien, Nightmare on Elm Street.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Why was this remade..., February 22, 2010
I completely agree with the other reviewers points, how there is nothing new to be brought to the table. And the PG-13 ruined it. The first was Brutal. This was clearly made for the CW channel.
Obviously the idea of the film was to remake a great film, ruin it, throw in some tight bod teen actors in swimsuits, cast the idiot from Nip Tuck as the stepfather, and make me fall asleep until the last 10 minutes. They accomplished EVERYTHING as above.
Im not going into detail with the film, as many others already have. But just take the word of anyone who didnt rate this higher than 3 stars. Save your cash and buy the original for your collection.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
I didn't like it..., February 25, 2010
Ok...I'll get to the point. I loved the original. It was funny. It was bloody. You actually believed that the "Stepfather" was crazy. He was so crazy that he believed his own lies. This version is just boring. In the end, I just felt like..Ok, so what? There was nothing shocking, or gory, or funny, or interesting, or entertaining about this movie. Why can't anyone come up with some original ideas? I would advise anyone who is thinking about watching this movie, to just skip it, and see the original.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
Slightly biased review, October 22, 2009
Why a remake after all these years? Was there anything new to bring to the table in this new version? A little, perhaps, but not necessarily anything groundbreaking. If you are a fan of the TV show "Lost" (though I really hope you aren't), you may get a little more satisfaction from the original version of "The Stepfather" starring that show's Terry O'Quinn ("John Locke").
I saw the original version in the theaters way back in the day. I loved it! O'Quinn's shrewd performance in the title role helped elevate what could have been just another pedestrian thriller into a real nail-biter. It didn't hurt having director Joseph Ruben running the show, either. It was low-budget but it was taut and effective. Not a wasted scene in the whole movie.
This new version, though, feels somewhat padded by comparison. The original was brief yet brisk. The new one somehow feels longer than it needs to be.
One of the more noticeable differences comes courtesy of the new film's PG-13 rating. The original film opens with a chilling reveal where the villain walks nonchalantly through the bloodbath he created, the bodies of his viciously murdered family covered in blood and lying all about the living room and entrance hall. In this new version, there is no blood in that scene. We see the bodies of his family, but we just presume them to be dead based on the eerie music and the premise of the story. Just to look at the bodies, one really can't tell if they are dead or merely unconscious. (How did he kill them? There were no visible signs. Did he poison them? Did he make them watch a "Lost" marathon and bore them to death? We don't find out for sure until a later scene). So instead of having a punch-to-the-gut opening like in the original, we get a scene that lays the groundwork for the character in a somewhat tame and less dangerous way.
There are some necessary technological and administrative updates in this version, however. This new Stepfather has to sidestep the very large issue of needing to have no ID paper trail, an issue the first movie conveniently avoided altogether. When the 2009 stepfather starts his new job in a realtor's office, he keeps the job only until he can no longer stall having to come up with photo ID and SSN for the mandatory employment tax records. That also necessitates another change from the original - he has not yet wed his new fiancée, he merely lives with her and her family. Try getting married without any kind of ID, folks. The first film doesn't deal with that at all but you're generally too caught up in the story to notice. Also, there are some key moments courtesy of some cellphones.
I think the film might have been better and more interesting if our villain had found a creative way to circumvent these administrative issues rather than simply running from them. It would have made him seem to be a far more intelligent and cunning villain rather than just a disturbed man with a twisted plan.
There are several other key differences too, including the number of stepchildren, extended family members, outside victims, and the film's climax and dénouement. It definitely has a contemporary feel to it, but it lacks much of the menace and dread that permeated the original. In the original, it was the young stepdaughter who became suspicious of the new man in her family, and the audience feared for her safety. In the remake, the suspicious one is the older and definitely athletic stepson, who looks like he would have little trouble taking on his stepdad in a fight. That dilutes the dread factor more than a little bit. You still have that stepchild to root for, but you really don't fear for him as much.
Instead of the new stepfather marrying a widow with a child, as in the original, here he woos a divorcee whose ex-husband figures into the story a little (and the bickering between the two exes certainly rings true to life). But as a fan of the original film I can't help thinking that the writers of the new film just went point-for-point against the old script and tried to make some minor elements different just for the sake of doing so, or for no other reason than to simply put a different stamp on things.
But will you like this remake even if you haven't even seen the original? Hard to say. The new cast is certainly attractive enough. There's a little eye candy for everyone. But I'd have to go with the original in every other category, and those are the categories that matter.
And given the larger number of peripheral characters in this new one, I'm a little surprised the body count wasn't a bit higher. It didn't necessarily need to be higher, but this story already stretches plausibility pretty thin anyway so the filmmakers might as well let the audience have a little fun.
And of course, we can't forget the film's score. Where the original had a creepy synthesizer score (courtesy of one of the keyboard players for the band Yes), this film's soundtrack is peppered with enough pop and rock songs to fill a soundtrack CD. That's pretty much par for the course nowadays, ain't it? Whatever happened to ambience for ambience's sake?
I can't say I cared too much for the ending. The story ties up a bit too quickly and easily. It's kind of a cop-out. Also, at the screening I attended the sound mix way way off -- the music track was SO LOUD that it all but drowned out the dialog from the confrontation in the kitchen all the way until the very end of the film. I don't know if the problem was the film mix itself or something the local theater projectionist had a hand in.
Overall, though, the acting was decent enough. I just think the execution of the film as a whole was a let-down. Even the scenes of violence, the cornerstones for depicting the evil twistedness of the title character, were tame and too PG-13 to be effectively scary.
Skip this version and watch the original. It is taught and tight. This one feels padded yet somehow empty by comparison.
Final note -- Sela Ward costars in this film. Her appearance can be summed up in two words: Hubba hubba!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Meh!!---It's Okay, But Nowhere Near As Good As The 1987 Original!!, February 20, 2010
This is a pretty good rent, but would I buy it?
Meh!!--Maybe not so much!! )-:
I mean don't get me wrong, it's okay and has some thrills here & there,
but in no way does it even come close to the original 1987 version!
That one had way more tension, suspense, and the stepfather was much more vicious!
This remake was inconsistent in it's thrills, suspense, and overall scream factor.
They tried to update the story a bit, but there was just something missing
that couldn't quite take you there like you want to taken when
you see a movie like this!
So in closing, rent this?---Yes!
Buy this?--Nah, but the original is now available on DVD
if you want to re-familiarize yourself with a classic.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
